September 4, 2008

It's like some bizarre nightmare/dream (depending on your party preference). The Dems had Obama, and then... suddenly Sarah.

It's as if some mad right-wing scientists designed and built an android to counter all the things that Obama is. Can she be real? Can it be that there was this actual human entity, on ice in Alaska, waiting for this moment to be thawed out and set loose in the lower 48?

IN THE COMMENTS: Simon:

Ann, remember Jon Turley's line about John Roberts et fam. at the 7th Circuit Bar meeting last year? "Hydroponically raised by Karl Rove in the White House basement" or something to that effect.

There is nothing more amusing this morning than reading the comments on the New York Times about how terrible Sarah Palin was giving her speech last night.

She is gifted in this arena. In Clinton, Obama territory. Why people can't begin by acknowledging that - whatever their political stripe - is simply an indicator of blindness caused by hyper-partisanship

These are the kind of same people who would immediately begin calling Tiger Woods an amateur if Tiger declared himself pro-life.

Face it. Even Tom Shales, the ultra-liberal TV Columnist for the Washington Post and someone who will never vote for her, titles his positive review of her VP speech "She Winds, She Shoots She Scores".

Which is further proof that critics who are deragatory of Sarah Palin's speech-giving ability are , well, it's impolite to say it, but. . . .

Megan wrote, "the notion that if a woman is to hold power, she has to make herself non-threatening by emphasizing her domesticity and fertility"

If powerful, then domestic and fertile. This is college-level logic, and just as wrong-headed as many other logical things you learn in college can be hard to let go of afterwards.

Is Hillary Clinton emphatically domestic and fertile, too? Is Condi? (Condi--because I don't know how to spell her real name.) Boxer, Feinstein? Meg Whitman? Would baking cookies and having babies have saved Carly Fiorina?

I always find it painful to watch politicians try to act like they're just folks. Does McArdle think Palin is acting a part?

One thing she is disturbingly good at is telling a lie with a smile, which got another round of applause. Again last night she said "I told the Congress, Thanks, but no thanks, on that Bridge to Nowhere." She told Congress nothing of the kind, she couldn't have. Congress killed the earmark in 2005, 1 year before she took office!

the catharsis that went missing in the dem convention could be found in her speech. she used obama and co. as a pinata. a sort of reconciliation of the party was there. a big F-U to her critics were there.

MCGSo Congress told her! Since the project was 329 million short, it couldn't be built. This is the 3rd time she's said "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks". Whatever word you want to call it, it's clearly not the truth. Congress absolved itself of the matter in 2005, 13 months before she took office.

Can it be that there was this actual human entity, on ice in Alaska, waiting for this moment to be thawed out and set loose in the lower 48?

I'm a cavewoman. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know...

I really wish Palin would lose the phony Eskimo references. Her husband Todd is a White man whose GRANDmother was half Eskimo.

Obama-level political natural? She is not level with Obama. Obama is not even on the same plane with her. Last night, she made Obama look like a bumbling, babbling, idiot. Even, Hillary Clinton has to take a back seat to her after last night.

She nailed him on experience, substance, and qualifications. There is real fear in the Obama campaign right now.

There's a world of difference between sending Alaska back some of its tax money and mandating by federal law that they build a specific bridge project.

Pork is a menace not just because federal dollars are being spent on local projects. It's because federal dollars are being spent to benefit certain contractors, certain local politicians and other special interests by earmarking particular local projects that put money in their pockets, while perhaps ignoring the real priorities of that locality.

There's something absurd about the federal government imposing such high taxes, and then turning around and doling out the money to the states for local projects.

Better to reduce federal taxes, and let the states raise theirs and thereby let the states decide which bridges and museums they really need. State taxpayers wouldn't object so much to higher state taxes if their federal taxes were lower.

if Todd isn't an Eskimo, then Obama isn't black. One drop rule, right?

Different rules apply under different situations. If Todd's one great-grandparent had been Jewish instead of Inuit, he would have been Jewish enough for Hitler to incinerate, but not Jewish enough for Israel to take in.

So Congress told her! Since the project was 329 million short, it couldn't be built. This is the 3rd time she's said "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks".

I see your argument, but it's pretty weak tea considering that Congress sent Alaska the money. You know, it's kind of like "We're not going to give you $200 Mil for the bridge, but we're gonna give you $200 Mil to do, um, something with." Really, there's a pox on both houses here---and as far as Alaska goes it's pretty much all Republican.

Dishonest Garage Mahal says "She told Congress nothing of the kind, she couldn't have. Congress killed the earmark in 2005, 1 year before she took office!"

Unfortunately for him, I know how to do searches on Wikipedia, which clears the whole thing up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

Relevant passage: The project was canceled in 2007 by its supporter [14] Alaska Governor Sarah Palin after Congress forced the funds to be used elsewhere.

Yeah, an honest argument can be made that she wasn't as opposed to the bridge as some of us would have liked, but Garage Mahal is telling an outright lie. The irony being that he was accusing Palin of telling an outright lie.

If you are one-sixteenth Native American, then you can claim it in job applications.

At least that's what I understand. If not, then please correct me.

Obama is fun to listen to once. It's amazing. But then the second time he's run out of rhetorical tricks, and by the third time he's the one that sounds like a cyborg on steroids, repeating the same oratorical gestures, boring the piss out of the proletariat and the patricians alike.

Good luck with that.

Palin is fresh and had some good sharp lines. Let's see how long she remains fresh and sharp.

Hey if Todd has enough of the right blood to open a casino, then he qualifies as a Native American.In fact I have some friends from South Jersey who want to talk to him about that. I mean he will be bored as second dude in Washington. Just sayn'

Well to be fair, it's a copy of an Obama campaign fact check. But even the first one is a crock. The statement that some politicians say "we can't drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect" is simply logically wrong. She said so, but thanks to a substitution of a conjunction she's painted as a liar. And yet, even so, she refrained (prudently) from attaching a specific number to it.

Sy, thanks for the heads-up. I wanted to find out how the ratings turned out:

According to Nielsen, 37.2 million people watched the speech on six networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News Channel, and MSNBC). That is just 1.1 million less than watched Obama's speech last Thursday night. Compare that to the estimated 24 million who watched Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden's speech last Wednesday night. You can also compare that to the about 34 million who watched the opening of the Beijing Olympics last month, 32 million who watched this year's Oscars and 31.7 million who watched last spring's American Idol finale.

She was fine. It was a pretty good speech. I liked the energy stuff, like MadMan. I was sort of surprised, since I don't usually (ever) watch this sort of thing, at how she and Giuliani beat Obama like a cheap tom-tom. (I presume the Dems did the same to the Reps.)

A natural?

You know, she did the beauty queen/sportscasting/politicking thing starting, what, 25 years ago?

Who knows if she's a natural? That implies she's not ever done this before.

The whole schtick about Ohio from 2004 is so tiresome and IMO, phony, a wholly artifical attempt at scandal-making by the MSM in the tank for Kerry.

Why do I say that? I can clearly remember from the night of the election that the networks called Pennsylvnia (IIRC) for Kerry very early, when his margin in both percentage and absolute terms was smaller than Bush's lead in Ohio.

WRT Ohio, they kept up the "too close to call" crap in effort to fan the flames in hopes of another Florida style debacle, or to create unjustified festering "we wuz robbed" resentment to last until 2008.

Finding the "Republican Obama" seems to be the new parlor game. I remember Frank Rich thought Mike Huckabee might be the Republican Obama. (He still might.) While I am a moderate disgusted with the Republican Party, I do think we do need them to be strong to keep the Democrats from taking us for granted.

The way government should be is that they are always working hard for our vote.